Author Topic: WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January  (Read 1522 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline happyg

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,822
WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January
« on: November 11, 2013, 10:46:18 AM »
President Barack Obama's sliding popularity because of Obamacare's problematic rollout will likely complicate White House efforts to garner support for other key second term goals: immigration reform, expansion of access to early-childhood education, and raising the minimum wage, The Wall Street Journal reported.
 

Obama is viewed personally positive by 41 percent of Americans compared to 45 percent who see him in a negative light. This is Obama's record low as president, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

Urgent:  Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll
 

Opinion on his performance as president is also sliding. Just 42 percent of those polled approved of the way he is handling his job with 51 percent disapproving.
 

Lou D'Allesandro, deputy Democratic leader in the New Hampshire Senate said, "His credibility is hurt, because he said things that aren't quite true," a reference to Obama's vow that no one would lose their health plans under the Affordable Care Act. "Unless a couple of dramatic things happen, he could be a lame duck by January."


 Former President George W. Bush had a 36 percent approval rating at a comparable point in his second term in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Former President Bill Clinton was popular with 58 percent of the public and Ronald Reagan with 62 percent at a comparable point in their presidencies.


 Obama's second term agenda may also suffer as Democratic lawmakers and groups that share his philosophy — on immigration reform, for instance — distance themselves from the president over concerns that Obamacare's troubles could harm their political prospects, according to the Journal.


 Meanwhile, the level of GOP disapproval makes it difficult for the president to build a bipartisan coalition for his legislative initiatives, the Journal reported.


 Obama acknowledged the current state of affairs in a recent Texas appearance.


 "Sometimes I worry, because everybody had such a fun experience in '08— at least, that's how it seemed in retrospect." Obama said. And 'yes we can' and the slogans and the posters, et cetera — sometimes I worry that people forget change in this country has always been hard."


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-lame-duck-january/2013/11/11/id/535872#ixzz2kLuTx6Xw

Online Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,130
Re: WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2013, 09:57:17 PM »
[[ WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January ... ]]

I really don't think he cares -- so long as he can play golf, get high, go on nice vacations, and make some speeches in front of appreciative crowds now and then, he's happy.

Online truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,039
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
    • The place where argument addicts can go
Re: WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2013, 11:15:34 PM »
It would be great to stomp the dems as badly in 14 and 16, as they did us, in 06 and 08.

Of course they were unified, and worked the same plan. And it worked.

I'm not optimistic based on what I see from the GOP, post 2010, having a civil war out in the open for all to see.


Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,633
  • Your what hurts??
Re: WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2013, 12:00:44 AM »
What's going to be interesting is watching the Hildebeest try to come riding in like some kind of Great White Hope to save the party from Obama, and have Joe Biden challenge her for the nomination.  An old white guy and an old white lady slugging it out to inherit Obama's version of Amerika...

But I see nobody in the Republican Party that can command a National campaign; at least not yet.  I fear things will have to get a lot worse before the press actually starts to turn on Obama, and when they do he will be much more than just a Lame Duck.  If the press ever decided to do their frickin' jobs they could run this guy out of the White House faster than they ran old Tricky Dick out.  The question is, will there be anything left of the Country worth saving by then??


Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Re: WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2013, 03:12:36 AM »
It would be great to stomp the dems as badly in 14 and 16, as they did us, in 06 and 08.

Of course they were unified, and worked the same plan. And it worked.

I'm not optimistic based on what I see from the GOP, post 2010, having a civil war out in the open for all to see.

I guess you slept through the 2010 election when the TEA PARTY kicked butt and took back congress.
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Online 240B

  • Lord of all things Orange!
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,382
Re: WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2013, 06:25:45 AM »
[[ WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January ... ]]

I really don't think he cares -- so long as he can play golf, get high, go on nice vacations, and make some speeches in front of appreciative crowds now and then, he's happy.


You nailed it Fish. Obama cares about nothing but Obama. The only reason he seems to 'care' about Obamacare and health is only about how it reflects on him and how it gives him power, and not how it 'helps people'. Obamacare is more about government control and power than it is about 'health'.


He has already done what he wanted to do. He has smacked America down, put America in it's place, and made America more like the rest of the world. That was his primary mission and he has done it.


Even if Obamacare fails, Obama will personally believe that he was successful with his personal mission achieved. Then he can get high and play golf the rest of his life, and leave the mess to others to try to clean up after he is long gone.
You cannot "COEXIST" with people who want to kill you.

Offline sinkspur

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 28,599
Re: WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2013, 07:55:14 AM »
I guess you slept through the 2010 election when the TEA PARTY kicked butt and took back congress.

Correction.  The GOP took back the House, but lost the Senate precisely because of such lame Tea Party candidates as Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, and Christine O'Donnell. 
From  "A Shining City on a Hill"

To "A global laughingstock"

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 44,025
  • #ToldYouSo
Re: WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2013, 08:50:31 AM »
Correction.  The GOP took back the House, but lost the Senate precisely because of such lame Tea Party candidates as Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, and Christine O'Donnell. 

And the refusal of the GOP leadership to support them.  Seems something like that just happened again, in VA.  It's long past time the GOP leadership and moderate republicans relearned the 11th Commandment and the purpose behind its creation:  making moderate Republicans start pulling for the team by stopping the vitriol and hatred they poured - and now continue to pour - on conservative members of the GOP.  The 11th Commandment was never meant for conservatives or other minorities within the GOP, it was meant for the moderates and the leadership in the GOP.  Go read up on it.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2013, 08:50:47 AM by Oceander »

Offline sinkspur

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 28,599
Re: WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2013, 09:03:40 AM »
And the refusal of the GOP leadership to support them.  Seems something like that just happened again, in VA.  It's long past time the GOP leadership and moderate republicans relearned the 11th Commandment and the purpose behind its creation:  making moderate Republicans start pulling for the team by stopping the vitriol and hatred they poured - and now continue to pour - on conservative members of the GOP.  The 11th Commandment was never meant for conservatives or other minorities within the GOP, it was meant for the moderates and the leadership in the GOP.  Go read up on it.

The 11th Commandment applies to ALL Republicans, not just moderates.  But you know that, since it's been pointed out to you over and over and over.

I've read up on it.  You're flat-assed wrong.  When Ronald Reagan invoked it, he applied it to EVERY Republican.

Republicans, by themselves, cannot win elections.  They need Independents, and Independents didn't support the Witch in Rhode Island, or Angle or Buck.   Dick Lugar would easily have won re-election in 2012, but Tea Partiers supported Richard Murdock who beat Lugar, then promptly shoved his foot in his mouth on rape.

So, it works both ways.
From  "A Shining City on a Hill"

To "A global laughingstock"

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 44,025
  • #ToldYouSo
Re: WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2013, 09:10:34 AM »
*  *  *

I've read up on it.  You're flat-assed wrong.  When Ronald Reagan invoked it, he applied it to EVERY Republican.

*  *  *

Then you haven't read a damned thing, or you've been reading the wrong things, because you don't know a damned thing sonny boy. 

First, Ronald Reagan didn't create the 11th Commandment, Gaylord Parkinson, who was at the time chairman of the California Republican Party.  That this is the unvarnished truth is testified to by Reagan himself, in his 1990 autobiography.  See Reagan, Ronald Wilson. An American Life, Simon and Schuster, 1990, p. 150.

Second, Gaylord Parkinson came up with the 11th Commandment in order to avoid a repetition of liberal Republican assaults on Barry Goldwater in 1964.

Go blow it out your a$$ sonny boy and try reading some real history next time - for the first time.

Offline sinkspur

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 28,599
Re: WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January
« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2013, 09:29:39 AM »
Then you haven't read a damned thing, or you've been reading the wrong things, because you don't know a damned thing sonny boy. 

First, Ronald Reagan didn't create the 11th Commandment, Gaylord Parkinson, who was at the time chairman of the California Republican Party.  That this is the unvarnished truth is testified to by Reagan himself, in his 1990 autobiography.  See Reagan, Ronald Wilson. An American Life, Simon and Schuster, 1990, p. 150.

Second, Gaylord Parkinson came up with the 11th Commandment in order to avoid a repetition of liberal Republican assaults on Barry Goldwater in 1964.

Go blow it out your a$$ sonny boy and try reading some real history next time - for the first time.

I read your reference from Wikipedia.  Ronald Reagan popularized the 11th Commandment; nobody even knows who the hell Parkinson is or was.  And Reagan applied it to EVERY Republican.

I'll ignore your nastiness.  For now.
From  "A Shining City on a Hill"

To "A global laughingstock"

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,136
Re: WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January
« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2013, 09:45:24 AM »
It would be great to stomp the dems as badly in 14 and 16, as they did us, in 06 and 08.

Of course they were unified, and worked the same plan. And it worked.

I'm not optimistic based on what I see from the GOP, post 2010, having a civil war out in the open for all to see.

The dems are not unified, that's the reason all the hype of disorganized republicans.  Classic misdirection for cover.
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Online Lando Lincoln

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,763
Re: WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January
« Reply #12 on: November 12, 2013, 09:45:47 AM »
Go blow it out your a$$ sonny boy and try reading some real history next time - for the first time.

Wow.  And all I said to Lipstick was "Unnecessary".
For the progressive, there is very little to love about the United States. Washington, Jefferson, Madison? A bunch of rotten slaveholders, hypocrites, and cowards even when their hearts were in the right places. The Declaration of Independence? A manifesto for the propertied classes. The Constitution? An artifact of sexism and white supremacy. The sacrifices in the great wars of the 20th century? Feeding the poor and the disenfranchised into the meat-grinder of imperialism. The gifts of Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Astor? Blood money from self-aggrandizing robber barons. Nat Rev

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Re: WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January
« Reply #13 on: November 12, 2013, 04:35:45 PM »
I guess the 11th only applies to conservatives and not people like McConnell or McCain who are calling the conservative members of the GOP names like "whacko birds."  got it...

and deny all you want the 2010 election was a sea change election and a total surprise to most observers who ignored the tea party........ 
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Online DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 31,118
Re: WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January
« Reply #14 on: November 12, 2013, 05:03:13 PM »


Yeah, Ocean!   A little bit!   A little bit!  You insulted him.....a little bit!
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"I am responsible for what I say.  I am not responsible for what your understand."  ...me

Online truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,039
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
    • The place where argument addicts can go
Re: WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January
« Reply #15 on: November 12, 2013, 08:36:16 PM »
I guess you slept through the 2010 election when the TEA PARTY kicked butt and took back congress.
In your haste, you obviously failed to notice "post 2010" in my writing.

The next election will determine if the Tea Party is a one-hit wonder, or if it is sustainable.

They lay dormant in 2012.


Offline Lipstick on a Hillary

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,027
Re: WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January
« Reply #16 on: November 12, 2013, 08:45:03 PM »
It would be great to stomp the dems as badly in 14 and 16, as they did us, in 06 and 08.

Of course they were unified, and worked the same plan. And it worked.

I'm not optimistic based on what I see from the GOP, post 2010, having a civil war out in the open for all to see.

"Unified"-to you- is everyone coming on board with McCain and Co.  That is never going to happen, so why don't you pick another subject to beat to death?

Offline happyg

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,822
Re: WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January
« Reply #17 on: November 12, 2013, 08:46:34 PM »
In your haste, you obviously failed to notice "post 2010" in my writing.

The next election will determine if the Tea Party is a one-hit wonder, or if it is sustainable.

They lay dormant in 2012.

The Tea Party was hampered by the IRS holding up their requests for non profit status.

Offline Lipstick on a Hillary

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,027
Re: WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January
« Reply #18 on: November 12, 2013, 08:48:04 PM »
Happy, don't let facts get in the way of a good obsession.

Offline Cincinnatus

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,514
Re: WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January
« Reply #19 on: November 12, 2013, 08:49:41 PM »
They lay dormant in 2012.

No, they did not. This is precisely the issue with the IRS. It purposefully held up Tea Party applications for tax exempt status in order to remove them as players in the 2012 election. I can assure you my local Tea Party was revved up and ready to go but we have been waiting THREE years for approval.
We shall never be abandoned by Heaven while we act worthy of its aid ~~ Samuel Adams

Offline happyg

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,822
Re: WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January
« Reply #20 on: November 12, 2013, 08:49:49 PM »
Happy, don't let facts get in the way of a good obsession.

 :silly: The obvious is generally ignored.

Offline sinkspur

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 28,599
Re: WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January
« Reply #21 on: November 12, 2013, 09:14:16 PM »
"Unified"-to you- is everyone coming on board with McCain and Co.  That is never going to happen, so why don't you pick another subject to beat to death?

And, to you, unified means all Republicans lining up behind Ted Cruz.  That is never going to happen, either.
From  "A Shining City on a Hill"

To "A global laughingstock"

Offline Lipstick on a Hillary

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,027
Re: WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January
« Reply #22 on: November 12, 2013, 09:21:52 PM »
In case you haven't noticed, it isn't the Cruz types that are constantly whining about GOP unification.

Online truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,039
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
    • The place where argument addicts can go
Re: WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January
« Reply #23 on: November 12, 2013, 09:50:01 PM »
The Tea Party was hampered by the IRS holding up their requests for non profit status.
FYI I served as Treasurer, for a PAC, and we didn't wait, we started and proceeded in anticipation that our applications would be approved.

We applied to the California Secretary of State, not to the IRS.

My PAC sent me to an attorney, that specialized in such matters. He basically gave me a cookbook.

We won more than we lost. Never audited, end of story.

Offline Lipstick on a Hillary

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,027
Re: WSJ: Obama Could Be 'Lame Duck' by January
« Reply #24 on: November 12, 2013, 09:55:23 PM »
Fascinating.  And that has exactly WHAT to do with the suppression of the Tea Party and other conservative groups around the country?? 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf